"3 ranks or 2 ranks - Which was better?" Topic

I'm re reading my battle accounts to try and determine whether the old "truth" that British 2-rank formations were always intrinsically better than French 3-rank formations was actually "true" and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts….

Maneuvering: – 3 ranks is more compact and easier to move over distance without disordering. Also might be easier to change formation?… The British sometimes commented that the French moved more efficiently and more quickly. For a maneuver oriented army like the French that could well have been the deciding factor.

Morale: – Hmmmm…. Is 3 ranks any better? The third rank guys can see exactly what is happening in front and I wonder if 3 ranks wouldn't crumble as easily as 2?

Target size – As muskets have a parabolic trajectory, the balls strike obliquely downwards onto the target and not straight on. So making the target as "thin" as possible when it faced its opposition probably reduced casualties. A 2-rank target is 33.3% thinner than a 3-rank target. So this might favour the British.

Musketry? – I really don't know enough about this. In particular, could the third rank in a French unit fire? And could it fire efficiently? And if not, did it serve a purpose by loading for the second rank? And how efficiently did it do this?

Bear in mind that all competent infantry officers shied away from prolonged musketry exchanges and held to the maxim that a bayonet charge would break the adversary before contact. Prolonged musketry was seen as a damnable method of uselessly killing off your battalion without breaking through the enemy.

The trick was to catch the enemy changing formation or in the wrong alignment or with his flanks threatened and then break him with a quick bayonet charge.

I have normally given the British a musketry bonus for 2-rank formations, but is this justified? Wouldn't the further out companies on the British battalion's flank be firing at a more extreme range and a more oblique angle on the more compact French formation?

(See notes above about parabolic trajectory and factor in lack of sights and inaccurate weapons. If you are turning at 45 degrees to fire at long range at the corner of a French line, wouldn't this much reduce accuracy?)

Any guys with any thoughts? Any reenactor guys who can comment on maneuvering, formation changing and musketry in either 2-rank or 3-rank units?

It was already a big discussion on this topic in the Napoleonic Wars.

I am a 3 rank guy, why, in case the soldier number twindeles you could still maintain frontage by feeding men from the third ranks into the front ones.

This could and was also done in case of battalions, when they became too weak they could still maintain frontage – now then two ranks.

A two rank battalion would dwindle in frontage.

Fire fight, usually only two out of three ranks would fire – but those two ranks firing wouldn't fire worse than a two ranks firing unit.

The third rank could be also used as tactical reserve, as the Austrians did in the French Revolutionary Wars – to form ad hoc reserve battalions (ending then of course in two rank battalions)
Or you could use the third rank as skirmishers, as for example done by the Austrian Army from 1807 onwards.

Two rank units on the other hand could deploy very easy into skirmishers there you already have the two men body system right on from the start.

About manoeuvring, I found 3 ranks easier and it provides just that sort of more depth and solidity.

Could you kindly give me the link for the discussion you mention and I will read through it?

The history books will give the answer.

The history books will give the answer.

So it´s four ranks?

There is no such a book about this discussion but you will find here and there comments about it, like in the memoirs of Ney – who was a 3 rank guy – or St. Cyr who as a two rank man – or like

Renard : Considerations sur la tactique de l'infanterie en europe.

It is available on googe books for example and discusses the two – versus three rank approach.

link

There is no such a book about this discussion but you will find here and there comments about it, like in the memoirs of Ney – who was a 3 rank guy – or St. Cyr who as a two rank man – or like

Renard : Considerations sur la tactique de l'infanterie en europe.

It is available on google books for example and discusses the two – versus three rank approach.

Aah, I misunderstood. I thought you referred to a discussion on this or some other forum.

The history books will give the answer.

Normally, one avoided extended musketry fire fights. The British won because Atty normally arranged things so that the French fought at a disadvantage – i.e. advancing up a large hill and being surprised in the wrong formation at the top.

The French won occasionally the same way. Cole gets blown away at Salamanca because Clausel nails him at the top of a hill and hits him with dragoons and infantry at the same time.

If the 2-rank formation was so much better at musketry, the British would have engaged in musketry duels routinely – because they believed they would inevitably win. But they avoided doing this because it was indecisive.

Huevans011 – I believe the 'discussion' von Winterfeldt was referring to, took place between military professionals and theorists during the early 19th Century. So probably no 'link'…

Anyway. It seems to me that 2 ranks may have been a solution to lack of numbers. With 2 ranks you obviously need fewer men to maintain the same frontage as a 3 rank army. British expeditionary forces were always small in comparison to Continental armies. Maybe the reason for their seemingly enthusiastic adoption of the formation?

Despite the inability of one third of the men in a 3 rank formation to fire, it must have had other advantages. It was in almost universal use for a long time.

I have always been confused by statements from earlier wars that said they reduced from six ranks (or whatever) to three so everyone could shoot. Then suddenly in the Napoleonic wars that 3rd rank can't shoot.

Shooting wasn't the only consideration for troops in line. British line infantry spent most of Waterloo in 4 ranks due to the cavalry threat.

It seems to me that 2 ranks may have been a solution to lack of numbers. With 2 ranks you obviously need fewer men to maintain the same frontage as a 3 rank army. British expeditionary forces were always small in comparison to Continental armies. Maybe the reason for their seemingly enthusiastic adoption of the formation?

Sounds reasonable, but in fact it doesn't seem to have worked like that – British battalions formed in 2-deep whether they were strong or weak. Major Snort has show this before on this forum.

I have always been confused by statements from earlier wars that said they reduced from six ranks (or whatever) to three so everyone could shoot. Then suddenly in the Napoleonic wars that 3rd rank can't shoot.

Well,it seems to have been that in theory the third rank could shoot but in practice it was hard to achieve because at least one of the ranks had to do something quite fussy to achieve it.

By no means as well informed as many other contributors, nevertheless I thought it worthwhile to mention having read, years ago, that in the French Army the third rank would load muskets and pass them forwards. There was, as I recall, a description of how loaded, and also discharged muskets would be passed backwards and forwards, even which hands -left or right- would receive muskets going from either direction. Was this more of a theoretical, field-day practice than something routinely practised in action?

The British always used 2 ranks, except of course at Waterloo where they were concerned about the massed French cavalry. So it doesn't seem to have been about inferior numbers. Indeed, often the British outnumber the French in infantry – i.e. Salamanca.

No one else used 2 ranks. I am also wondering why the British decided to buck convention and use a 2 rank formation. Was it a 1790's thing? Did it date to the AWI?

No one else used 2 ranks.

IIRC the prussian fuseliers used 2 ranks also. And the musketiers used their 3rd rank as skirmisher.

Did the British form into three ranks for shock action?

No one else used 2 ranks. I am also wondering why the British decided to buck convention and use a 2 rank formation. Was it a 1790's thing? Did it date to the AWI?

Napoleon ordered it adopted in 1813, although it isn't clear how much it was implemented (or not). It did date to the AWI and IIRC American troops also used 2-ranks.

More here: TMP link

I have always been confused by statements from earlier wars that said they reduced from six ranks (or whatever) to three so everyone could shoot. Then suddenly in the Napoleonic wars that 3rd rank can't shoot.

That's because when a 3 rank formation was adopted the first rank keeled. Making the to back ranks work like a 3 rank formation. They also had a special "lock in" pose when they fired. The kneeling rank could hold it's fire incase of cavalry attack, so if you feared cavalry, 1/3 of the battalion had loaded muskets a d that was usually enough to stop the cavalry. Exactly when they stopped kneeling is unknown, some claim the prussians had stopped it by the SYW, other say it disappeared later. It reason given for it's disappearance was that it was hard to get the kneeling soldiers up and moving again. They'd rather sit tight.

Boney ordered this shortly before the battle of Leipzig due to the fact that his army was melting away due to the back and forth marching by about a third, so his reason was to keep front and make by this the impression to the Allies that he was up to strength.

The fire – where middel rank swopped loaded muskets with the third rank, is called feu de deux rangs, it was more or less drill ground only because soldier in battle were reluctant to pass their own muskets to other soldiers.

A statement by Général Fririon on feu de peloton. cited in, J. Collin: 'La tactique et la discipline dans les armées de la révolution.' p. XVII [1902]
'Le premier rang doit mettre genou à terre: eh bien! je ne l' ai pas vu faire une seule fois. Dans les combats, les hommes, échauffés par l'action, font toujours le feu libre ou de billebaude. Le premier rang tire debout, le deuxième de même; et que font les hommes du troisième rang? Recevant les coups comme les autres, est – il possible alors de rendre nos Français impassibles? Le bruit, la fumée, les blessés, etc……
bref, les hommes, ayant des armes qui resteraient inutiles, tirent aussi; mais pour ne pas nuire à leurs chefs de file, ils tirent en l' air et n' ont fait que du bruit. Dans le feu de deux rangs, nous avons l' expérience que les hommes de troisième rang, dans leur indomptable impétuosité, ne s' astreignent pas à la complication des mouvements exigés, de passer l' arme au deuxième rang; ils tirent aussi comme dans l' autre feu et font le même effet.'
I translate this as…..
'The front rank has to put their knee on the ground: well! I have not seen it done a single time. In combat, men, in the heat of the action, always fire independently. The front rank fires while standing, the second similarly; and what do the men of the third rank do? Being shot at like everyone else, is it possible then for our Frenchmen to stay impassive? The noise, the smoke, the wounded, etc. …..
In brief, men, having weapons that are not being used, also begin firing; but so as not to harm to their file leaders, they fire into the air and do nothing but make noise. With feu de deux rangs, we have the experience that men of third rank, in their indomitable impetuosity, do not carry out the required complicated movement, to pass the weapon to the second rank; they fire as before and produce the same effect.'

French Garde Nationale did fight in the beginning of the French Revolutionary Wars, see their drill regulations of 1791 in two ranks only as the Indian French troops as well.

For Garde Nationale one of the reasons was their they were a third less in numbers than the line units and by that could maintain equal frontage but it seems that another reason might be that the professionals indeed were under the impression it was easier to manouevre in 2 ranks.

Prussian Füsiliere indeed were originally in two ranks only as well, from 1787 to 1807 – but in the Liberation Wars they were back to three ranks.

"No one else used 2 ranks. I am also wondering why the British decided to buck convention and use a 2 rank formation. Was it a 1790's thing? Did it date to the AWI"

It dates to an order from Amherst in July 1759, circulated as a Standing Order and put into devastating practice by James Wolfe at Quebec in September where it was employed specifically to extend the line, secure both flanks, and maximise fire on the advancing French.

"July 9th

The grenadiers and brigades of [1st and 2nd brigades) are during this campaign, to be drawn up on all services two deep: …when the battalion is told of in platoons in the parade, the whole battalion is to be three deep.. The commanding officers will then order the Officers commanding platoons to form them two deep, which they will do by dividing the rear ranks;…This method is to be practised, that every Officer commandonf a platoon may have the men of the third rank next to him, that , in case the service should require it, the whole battalion can be formed three deep in an instant….

The men to be acquainted that this is ordered, as the enemy have very few regular troops to oppose us and no yelling of Indians, or fire of Canadians, can possibly with stand two ranks, if the men are silent attentive and obedient to their officers…"

Thanks, von W., that's obviously the practice I had two-thirds recalled.

Seems to me 2 ranks only were for light infantry or when the ranks became thin, 3 ranks were used to fill holes or as th e Prussians did skirmishers but haven't figured out how to do that with a company stand.

@von Winterfeldt: it depends: if the Füsilier-Btl is fighting in Line as part of a brigade, the third rank deploys as skirmisher, if they fight as Avantgarde, Arrieregarde etc:
page 114 Exerzier-Reglement

Jede Companie muß sich in drei Zügen, 2 Mann hoch, formiert betrachten

The differences between the rangs will be omitted. I would translate 2 Mann hoch as two men deep.

I think the Prussians were to be highly flexible according to their reglement, reality might have been different. As the fire of skirmisher was seen as more efficient than fire from a line, as artillery was more efficient than musketry under special circumstances, and as shock action was more decisive than musketry duels, the question of fire from two or three rangs might not be as important as the question of counterattacking in column or receiving the assault in line for a Prussian officer.

I think 2 ranks were used by both sides in the American Revolution / War of Independence?!

@dogtail

Yes but the basic order would be three ranks, while from 1787 to 1807 it would be permanently two ranks only.

Indeed in the AWI also the Hessians – Hessen Kassel, fought in two ranks.

What did everyone eventually adopt?

There's your answer.

Open order and taking cover in small groups – but it took about a century….

Two ranks were used by most in the latter half of the 19th century. I think both sides in the franco-prussian war had 2 deep line.

[Duke of York's orders to the Army]

'Sunday, Head Quarters Rosendal,
27th July 1794.

British Orders.

His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief orders
the formations of the battalions of infantry of the army
under his command to be in three ranks, but with the
following regulations, which are at all times to be ob-
served : —

When the battalion forms for action, the third rank
is instantly to be formed into two divisions, and two
ranks, each under the command of an officer.

When the army or corps to which the battalion be-
longs is in two lines, those divisions will form on the
rear of the centre of each wing of their battalions at
the distance of fifty paces.

When there is no second line, the two divisions
joined together, a captain is appointed to the command
of them ; and being then in one body, it forms a re-
serve each to its own battalion, at 200 paces in the rear
of the centre ; in this manner these divisions form a
reserve or second line, which may be used either in
lengthening the first line by being carried to either
flank, or as a corps-de-reserve to strengthen any point
may be necessary.

When a battalion is ordered to march, the two divi-
sions formed from the third rank will join again as
expeditiously as possible, being always on the march of
a column, disposed of as a third rank, unless it be on a
short march of manoeuvre to right or left, in which case
these divisions will move in column in the same direc-
tions, preserving their relative situation to the battalion.

As this may require a little practice to render it
familiar to the regiments, his Royal Highness desires
that the general officers, and officers commanding bri-
gades, will see that they are trained to it at roll-calling,
or other occasions or theory of exercise.'

Rifle armed troops of all nations were deployed in two ranks.

If memory serves, the 1791 reglement specified going to two ranks when the units were at half-strength, so maintaining frontage was A factor, if not THE factor. (And the Continentals start at two ranks in the "Blue Book"--which has an assumption of 240 rank and file as a normal battalion.) I think the overall thinning from six down to, eventually two, probably ties into faster drill--matchlocks to flintlocks, priming the pan to self-priming pans, iron ramrods replacing wooden and so forth. This also suggests better drilled troops might produce the same fire in fewer ranks. And if you got some additional fire out of the third rank, it might not have been proportionate, so that thinning from three to two ranks would get you a net increase--if you had room enough on the firing line.

But any one of these--or any combination of them--might have been in the minds of certain officers at certain times. All we can say with certainty is that the ranks thin from six to two from the latter half of the Seventeenth Century to the first half of the 19th, and that generally the English-speaking world tends to lead.

Two ranks were used by most in the latter half of the 19th century. I think both sides in the franco-prussian war had 2 deep line.

Rifle muskets are a huge game-changer. You go from closely-packed, slow-moving columns being used by the Russians at the Battle or the Alma to loose, 2-man deep lines running through the "beaten zone" at Gettysburg, 11 years later.

The Bavarians fought in the Napoleonic Wars also till 1809 in two ranks and went back to three.

Rifle muskets are a huge game-changer. You go from closely-packed, slow-moving columns being used by the Russians at the Battle or the Alma to loose, 2-man deep lines running through the "beaten zone" at Gettysburg, 11 years later.

We've been through this before, the rifled muskets were not a huge game changer. It's just part of all the other American myth marking stuff

A 150 guns fired at the attacking rebels at picketts charge many at them in enfeled fire. The union soldiers could have had pointed sticks and the result would have been about the same.
And for every time you had a clear field of fire for several hundred yards. There are 5 firefighters that happened at 120 yards, because north America is rather wooded and broken in it's terrains. Doesn't help having a gun with a theoretical range of 400 yards when you rarely see the enemy until they are 100 yards away.

Also were do you get loose 2 deep line. As far as I know they still fought in shoulder to shoulder formation just like the British did.
The line was far looser during the AWI were the British adopted a short of semi open order formation. And not a single rifled musket in that war.

British infantry deployed in two ranks were better able to fire when using the "Peninsular" method. Two ranks permitted each man to adopt a slightly looser frontage/position which assisted in improving musketry.

Being crowded together in three ranks did not aid good musketry.

DB

British firing as such would not cause more casualties than infantry arranged in three ranks, where anyway usually in the field anyway the first two ranks would fire, British infantry was formed elbow to elbow as well, so why should they be better in hitting, they would be crowded as well.

Yes in AWI – the usual fighting arrangement was "American scramble."

Firing in rank and file prevented any good aiming and therefore was the least suitable firing method in case you would like to inflict casualties by a fire fight.

I am a 3 rank guy, why, in case the soldier number twindeles you could still maintain frontage by feeding men from the third ranks into the front ones.

This could and was also done in case of battalions, when they became too weak they could still maintain frontage – now then two ranks.

A two rank battalion would dwindle in frontage.

Fire fight, usually only two out of three ranks would fire – but those two ranks firing wouldn't fire worse than a two ranks firing unit.

If you think about it, a unit in 3-rank line in a firefight would have to lose 33.3% of its strength before it could utilize fully its 3rd rank firepower. And by that point, it would likely have broken and fled.

I am not thinking about it, the third rank would continually feed in replacements to the first two ranks, also could be used to replace those carrying back wounded.

But I agree the argument of fire fight is not a strong one for 3 ranks, there firing in rank and file was not very effective causing casualties.

I cannot determine at what point a unit would brake or not.

Von W,

British infantry utilising the Peninsular method were not as crowded together. Hence better able to deliver more accurate volleys.

DB

So they fought in American scramble? I was under the impression that they kept close order – as any other army in the world as well, in case you can point out some sources to read up on this – I would be most grateful.

When the French deployed the third rank en tirailleurs ('en compagnie-peleton') the remaining peletons would naturally have two ranks remaining. Davout was particularly critical of this and instructed his own officers not to use it, which perhaps indicates it was commonly used.
Regards
Allan

When the French deployed the third rank en tirailleurs ('en compagnie-peleton') the remaining peletons would naturally have two ranks remaining. Davout was particularly critical of this and instructed his own officers not to use it, which perhaps indicates it was commonly used.
Regards
Allan

That's interesting. What were Davout's arguments against 2 ranks?

I guess we should also consider whether the British extended their infantry on as wide a frontage as possible because they often stacked their 3-brigade divisions in 3 lines.

The contemporary British comments re engagements during the Battle of Salamanca indicate that they felt the Portuguese were second rate and needed cosseting in the rear of the divisional formation. So the majority of fighting would be done with the 50% of the division which was British. And the brigade frontage needed to extended 50% wider as a result.

(That gets us into the whole area of national mythology and whether any of these contemporary accounts was entirely honest and unbiased. OTOH the weight of what evidence we have – if accepted – casts aspersion on the Portuguese.)

The British did not often stack their divisions in 3 brigade lines, so this is not relevant.

Regarding another comment above, I have never seen any evidence that the British opened up the density of their line formations in the Peninsular. They fought with the standard 21" or 22" frontage per man.

Good day David,
what is exactly the "Peninsular method" ? English infantry in two ranks with say 60cm between each soldier ?

I was thinking that – whether in 2 or 3 ranks-, infantry in close order executed "non aimed" fire and that only infantry skirmishing was in a position to execute "aimed fire".

about the intervals between soldiers in the rank, hers's a possible classification of "crowding" from "A practical guide for the light infantry officer", se page 1 after the intro.

close order(21") – loose files- open order – extended order

link

various period French documents are giving a practical space of 60 centimeters per soldier when marching or firing (versus 51 cm as in official instructions, which seems ok for troops not in action).

see Colin, at the bottom of page 26

PDF link

the point is interesting, especially when one consider the deployment of troops from a brigade and division perspective, and the space really needed to position the units tactically.

There Major Snort knows his stuff – I stick with his information.

My impression was that the British had a superb fire control and could countercharge after delivering one or two vollies, a thing usual unheard of.

It wouldn't matter if they would have been two or three ranks deep, it is discipline.

When the French deployed the third rank en tirailleurs ('en compagnie-peleton') the remaining peletons would naturally have two ranks remaining. Davout was particularly critical of this and instructed his own officers not to use it, which perhaps indicates it was commonly used.
Regards
Allan
That's interesting. What were Davout's arguments against 2 ranks?

Amongst other things, it reduced the the depth of the battalion in column from the preferred 9 ranks to only 6.
Regards
Allan

I wonder if David is thinking about British Light Infantry who could, by Regulation, open their files by 6", giving a frontage of either 27 or 28" per man?

This appears in the 1792 Dundas regulations. It is possible that the Light Division formed in this way, but I don't think I have ever seen any mention of it in eyewitness accounts in action.

A 150 guns fired at the attacking rebels at picketts charge many at them in enfeled fire. The union soldiers could have had pointed sticks and the result would have been about the same.

Please tell me this is hyperbole.

"Not as we know it, Jim"